Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-09-2000PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 9, 2000 PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, SUSIE MACKAY, LIZ WEIR, JIM LANE AND TOM SUPEL. ALSO PRESENT PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: JERRY BROST AND BRUCE WORKMAN Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. 1. Steve Ruchti - 1252 Deer Hill Road - Lot Combination/Re-Plat - Public Hearing Sandie Larson read the memo to the planning commission and explained the application. She mentioned that the surveyor has shown 10' drainage and utility easements on the final plat and because normally on the side and rear lines they are 5', she will check on this before final plat approval. Liz Weir said she and Susie had visited the site and noticed that there were two cars that appeared not to be in working order. They also asked about the trailer that was there. Steve Ruchti said he will be removing the cars and that the trailer was there when needed, to remove the cars, etc. and to help with the house addition. Tom Supel asked about the easements and the buildings on them. Jim Lane asked if the buildings that were too close to the rear lot line were considered non -conforming and if we required that anything be done, a variance, etc. There was discussion of the drainage and utility easements that were shown on the final plant. S. Larson mentioned that usually the easements on the side and rear lines were 5' and they are shown as 10'. She will check with Loren and the surveyor to see if there is a reason for the 10' or if they should be the 5'. If there is a 5' drainage and utility easement on the rear line, then there is one building that will be on the easement. If the easement is 10', then there are two buildings. S. Ruchti said the smaller building is a playhouse and can be easily moved. Further discussion on easements and buildings too close to the line. The applicant was made aware of the fact that one or two buildings would be on an easement and if the City ever needed to do anything there, the homeowner would know that he had building(s) in the way and may have to be moved. Both the playhouse and the existing 1 shed are too close to the rear lot line for the current setbacks. J. Lane was told that in a case like this, because the applicant is not requesting any changes in these buildings, that the City does not require a variance. It is noted that the City recognizes that there are buildings that do not meet current setback requirements. Lenny Leuer asked Steve if the proposed house addition will jeopardize the two maple trees. S. Ruchti said yes. One will definitely have to go and the other one, because of the construction being so close will probably have to also. He felt it best to take them down now before something happened like falling on the house. He said he does not know what it takes to put them in jeopardy. Susie Mackay said it depends on the type of tree. L. Leuer said it looks like the roots will be severed. He also asked about the other debris on the lot, old car batteries, etc. He wondered if Steve was planning on a general clean-up of the property. S. Ruchti said yes, it would all be taken care of. L. Weir asked if there were any plans to replace the shade trees. S. Ruchti said yes, they do plan on replacing them, probably the same kind, some kind of soft maple. MOVED BY LIZ WEIR AND SECONDED BY SUSIE MACKAY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT COMBINATION/RE-PLAT FOR STEVE RUCHTI AT 1252 DEER HILL ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The City recognizes that there are two existing buildings to the rear of the lot that do not meet the rear set -back requirements of our current ordinance and also that one or both of them may be on the drainage and utility easement. 2. Staff to verify whether the side and rear easement is 10' or 5'. 3. DeerHill Road right-of-way to be dedicated to the City. 4. All drainage and utility easements to be shown on the final plat. MOTION PASSED. This item will go to the City Council for their May 16th meeting. 2. Discussion 2 Jim Lane questioned why cleaning up a property cannot be consistent on all applications. In other words, making it a condition like we did recently in Independence Beach. Lenny explained that in variance and conditional use permit applications, that is something that we can do, but when we are dealing with a subdivision or re -plat like tonight, it is not something that can be put in the resolution. We can bring it to the applicants attention. Tom Supel said he also is concerned with the inconsistency. He would like for staff to find out if they can deal with it on an application like we had before us tonight. 3. Minutes of April 11, 2000 There were a number of spelling errors pointed out and changed. MOVED BY LIZ WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED WITH SUSIE MACKAY AND LIZ WEIR ABSTAINING. (NOT AT 4- 11 MEETING) 4. MINUTES OF April 25, 2000 There were a number of spelling errors pointed out and corrected. MOVED BY LIZ WEIR AND SECONDED BY SUSIE MACKAY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED WITH TOM SUPEL ABSTAINING (NOT AT 4-25 MEETING) 5. Adjournment MOVED BY LIZ WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date 3